November 06, 2018
I continue my argument with the Open Borders fellow at the American Conservative.
"…being an Old White Guy, I need Asiatics and Hispanics to flood in at world historical levels…”
Yeah, except they aren’t- the percentage of the US population comprised of immigrants is lower than it was in 1900.
Of course, they aren’t exactly "White”- and that’s the important thing, right?
"…the assumption that we need immigrants to replace anyone is just unsupported.”
Since 1950, the percentage of working age Americans has remained approximately steady (largely thanks to immigration, now that the baby boomers are reaching old age), while the number of Americans over 65 has nearly doubled.
Automation has certainly increased productivity (I’m assuming you want economic growth), but robots aren’t going to change your diaper (which studies have shown to be more frequently needed by ‘sky-is-falling’ Fox News viewers) or pay Social Security taxes.
I reply: Bob S you fail to examine this in detail.
"Yeah, except they aren’t- the percentage of the US population comprised of immigrants is lower than it was in 1900"
First, yes, as a percentage of the population immigrants in total were slightly higher than now. See this graph https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time But what of it? Most came from Europe and had strong cultural ties to our country, unlike the immigrants coming now from Third World places with little to no experience with self-determination or republican style government. These people are not just going to slide right into the American model; they are going to take a lot of extra time and money to enculturate. Second, the raw numbers of immigrants is far, far higher than at any point in our history; the peak was 14.1 million, and today we "enjoy" 44 million - more people than inhabit Canada. When America had a lot more space and lots of work to be done it made sense. But at what point do we put out the "no vacancy" sign? Third, and this is crucial, the U.S. shut down immigration in the 'twenties, because we had too many immigrants and needed to assimilate them. When are we going to do that with this current crop? Open borders types see no end to it and desire none. They want this to keep going and going. They don't care if it fundamentally alters America. They don't care if the U.S. becomes a Third World hellhole.
It's precisely what destroyed the Roman Empire. Or the Byzantines. Or the Ainu of Japan.
The U.S. has more immigrants than any other country on Earth http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/ despite being the third most populous nation. And the number of immigrants to America quadrupled since 1965 when we changed the laws. We can't assimilate them fast enough.
Furthermore, according to the Pew Center, 76% of immigrants are here legally, which means that one in four are here in violation of our laws. That is, if the stats are correct, and there is every reason to believe they are seriously lowballed. A recent Yale study suggests the number is at least double current estimates. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates
Which makes your numbers even weaker. Add another twelve million and your claims that we have higher immigration percentages in the past evaporate. This amounts to 56 million aliens or a greater percentage than in 1900.
Oh, and all of these people will draw on services that did not exist in the 19th century, like welfare, food stamps, disability, free education, social security, etc. They will go to the ER when sick if they do not have Obamacare (which also would be paid for by the taxpayers.) Things were very different then.
BTW, you may think Fox viewers bedwetters over this, but you CNN types are befouling your underwear in another way, one that ruins your chances at a family.
35 queries taking 0.2616 seconds, 98 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.